Trip Report and Debate Review

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, a road trip Dividing Line. I am not quite a third of the way, maybe across the great nation of Texas, because I'm going the long ways. Started off in Shreveport this morning, just across the border into Texas.

Wow, roads improve a lot. I still think Louisiana needs to start a benevolence fund for those of us who have to drive through Louisiana. We will donate out of the charity of our hearts to try to fix those roads.

RV Travel, Road Conditions, and Life on the Road

But anyway, I used to tell people where I was, and then I thought better of it, but I'm in an RV park. There's a hint for you. There are a few of them in Texas, trust me. I'm in an RV park on the, I will tell you I'm on the west side.

I've already passed Dallas and Fort Worth. So I'm heading across the 20, going the southern route, the same way I came out, basically. And so, well, no, it's not. I mean, I didn't come across the 20, but I'll eventually have to drive through El Paso.

That is a pain, let me tell you. It doesn't matter what time of day it is, getting through El Paso is ugly. Narrow lanes, construction, I think it'll always be that way. But anyways, love it out here.

Love being in the RV that you all have provided to us. And this thing keeps falling down and I don't know why, but I am going to, I'm gonna tape this thing up. That's what I'm gonna do. I'm just gonna, I'm gonna get back there and I'm gonna, it will never move again.

But yes, we are on our, I pulled into this slot and there's nobody in the row that I'm in. There might be now, I can't see over there. But, so I was getting set up and here comes this big fifth wheel and they've got a big dually and they're about two feet longer than I am.

And this is a big unit. So this is a really big unit. And as they're going by me, I'm sort of looking at them. And the whole, the bottom side of an RV is fabric, basically, stapled up with insulation and stuff like that.

So they can remove it, they can get the stuff and then put it back up. And the whole bottom of this thing is almost dragging on the ground. I mean, I can see insulation, I can see wood. I mean, this isn't good.

I'm just sort of like, as they're driving by and I wasn't sure where they were going cause I was on the other side of the RV. And then I saw them pull in over here and I thought, man, I better make sure.

I mean, they've got to know, you know. But I go walking over there and a guy sees me coming and he, what can I do for you? And I said, I'm sure I'm telling you what you already know but, and then I point to, and he backs away from the front of you.

Oh, great.

He said, no, I didn't know. And so I talked with he and his wife and, you know, she said, he spent the last two days underneath that thing working on the brakes. And it was sort of that, oh, getting so tired of this type thing.

And I get it, you know, we've had things happen with this one but you sort of get over it eventually. But it was just sort of a, it's a community thing. You know, I mean, we're all, I'd want them to do that for me.

And as I said to them, I said, well, we're all fighting the same battles, you know. Do you have what you need? You know, I've got my staple gun.

He's got,.

These things start off nice and light and then you collect every kind of tool and gizmo on the planet over the years. And they weigh 10 tons heavier by the time you get done because of all the repairing you have to do.

So just, just how it works. It is how it works.

And you may go, oh, just stay at a hotel.

Believe you me.

Well, it's time to go to bed tonight. I'm gonna lay down on my own bed, on my own pillow and I'm gonna have eaten my own food and I'm gonna sleep so much better, so much better. So I thank all of you that make it possible, the travel fund, the dayofmen .org.

That's how we do this. And, you know, every time we get back, we've got stuff we got to fix. It's not that the, this isn't a great unit.

It is.

It's that you, I don't care how well you build it. You drag it over these roads long enough and stuff shakes loose and, you know. This is a fantastic unit. I mean, I just, I was telling, actually I was telling John Cooper today of Skillet.

Somehow I had not filled him in on how we had gotten this unit. I sent him a picture while I was driving of this unit and he, what was his response? I am going to read you John Cooper's response. When, yeah, I says that meet Big Red.

His response was, holy smokes! With five exclamation points afterwards. Pastor Trey Fisher there at the parish, Parish Church of the Redeemer in Calhoun. I pulled into his yard with this thing and he's like, that's a house.

And I said, yeah, it is a house. And he's got a big diesel pusher. So I said, yeah, she's a house. And I'm so thankful for, you know, I may sleep better in here than I do at home. I might, it's true. There's no two ways about it.

But anyway, you know, let me just mention, I'm not sure if we're gonna try to grab the audio, just what, but one of the great things about traveling like this, being out on the road, are the pastors you get to meet.

And a couple of years ago, I met Skip Rainbolt and his guys when I first came to Shreveport. That was before I knew about the bypass around Shreveport. I went through the middle of Shreveport. And let me tell you something.

They are working on it. But the roads that I went over, oh, good. The roads that I went over that first time, not passable. I'm sorry, they were, I was doing 25 miles per hour on a freeway. It was so bad.

Anyway, evidently I stayed at a park out toward Fillmore, Halton area. And I'd forgotten that. Anyways, we got together at a Mexican restaurant and with his guys, and we were just talking theology and talking life and, you know, living the Christian life and things like that.

Encouragement from Faithful Pastors and Churches

And you just get to, you know, Trey Fisher and his elders, we've got a real good connection with them. And Apologia, my fellow pastor, Luke, who has a heart as big as Luke is. And Luke the bear is a big boy.

I mean, I look up to Luke, literally. And I keep hitting the microphone because I'm doing what Rich told me to do. I'm wearing the microphone. I don't know if he's going to be happy about that. I've got the lights up.

I've done everything Rich has asked me to do. I really, really have. But I keep ending up hitting the thing. So that'll probably end up making interesting noises. Anyways, you know, Brian Gunter down in Livingston and Skip Rainbolt and, you know, Trey Fisher and all these pastors that I have been ministering with, preaching at their churches.

And they've shown trust to have me in because you've got to trust the people that you put in front of your folks. You really do. It's just so encouraging to me to see these faithful pastors in rural areas, smaller areas, smaller churches.

You know, Brian's doing so much with the young people in his church. And, you know, he had me come over there at 6 .30 in the morning the day I'm doing a debate to meet with like 15 teenagers at a restaurant, you know, for like 20 minutes.

And that's just how much he is concerned about them. He wants to invest in them. And it's encouraging to me, but it's also encouraging, it should be encouraging to you. You support this ministry and you hear these folks talking about how much Alpha and Omega has meant to them over the years.

And I spoke on the rise of antisemitism in the church at Skip's church on Saturday night. And then the Sunday morning sermon, we're gonna try to post as well, where I talked about 2 Thessalonians 2 and God, if you're refusing to love the truth, God causes you to believe a lie.

And I'm tying that with what's going on in Colorado right now. And, you know, I was talking again, another great pastor up in Colorado, a church that I ministered at last year. And he's telling me today, the small local churches are coming out and they're fighting this insanity.

If you don't know, Colorado pushing the most radical, insane, evil, demonic bill to, in essence, make it impossible to be a Christian parent in Colorado. I mean, this is Colorado's way of saying, we hate you God, Christians get out of here.

We want nothing but debauchery in our state. They've been saying that for a long time, but now they're coming right out with it. He said, it's the small churches that are standing up. The mega churches aren't doing anything.

And you know why? They've got a big building to pay for.

They've got a budget.

That's the problem. And so anyway, just getting to hear Saturday night at Fillmore Baptist Church, a fellow came up to me with his sons after the service. And lo and behold, the guy ministers to Muslims in Istanbul.

I'm not gonna mention any names, but he's written some books and I'm looking through the books, they look really good. And my work, my book, whatever Christian he's about to put on, was part of what encourages, part of what gives him information and foundation and encourages him to do the things he's doing.

We'll just never know. In this life, where this program especially ends up going, it's, and we had no idea. Look, I remember that office in the garage at Rich's house when we didn't have enough money to pay the radio bill.

And so we were, this real audio stuff seems to work. Let's try that, you know? And we didn't have some grand global vision of Christian webcasting and all the rest of that stuff. We were just trying to be faithful with what we had at the time.

And it is astonishing what the Lord has done. It really, really is. And I'd say despite us, not because of us, but in spite of us. What he's done is just absolutely amazing. It really is. So yeah, exciting stuff.

We were in that garage for 13 years, Rich says. Yep, and it's now a garage again. That's almost the sad part to me, is that it's a garage again. That place where my library was, and we did the dividing.

That was where I was when we did the first Radio Free Geneva in response to Rogers, Adrian Rogers. I, man, did that get a response.

Yow!

That was something else. Yes, yes. And it was one of the bedrooms of that house is where I wrote the King James Only Controversy.

Oh yeah, yeah.

You know, you try to be faithful in little and then you get to do other stuff, I guess. And when people look at me right now and they go,.

Oh, there's almost nobody in that congregation there. And you're in an RV, in an RV park, man.

You're hooking up a sewer house. And I go, yep, I sure am.

I love it. I love it.

And I'm going to keep doing it. And not just because, let's say the pendulum swings back the other direction and freedom flies out the window. And the only way you're gonna be able to get around is in one of these things.

And all these folks jetting around the day are gonna be calling me up and go, okay, you said you'd help us out. Give us a class. What have you learned? Because yeah, I'm over 65 ,000 miles now pulling one of these beasties.

And so, yeah. Enjoying it. So what happened last week? I'm probably gonna get together with Jeremiah Nortier, I think tomorrow evening, if I can. Again, it all depends. One of the things you're on the road.

I'm out here in the middle of nowhere. There are two horses, literally. I can throw a rock and hit the horses. I'm not gonna do that. I like horses, but they're right over there. There's livestock over there, trees all around.

I'm in the middle of nowhere. And I have 5G ultra wide, four or five bars, maximum bars on my phone. Don't even know how that works. Nevermind. I just found the 5G tower right over there. That's why.

Okay.

So I don't know what I'll have tomorrow. So I don't know that I'll necessarily be able to do this, but Jeremiah and I are gonna try to get together and do a debate review. Because Jeremiah moderated the debate with AK Richardson.

And I didn't, I was gonna show this. I wonder if I, I think I can. Yeah, there we go. Oh, stop that. Let me see here. I wasn't planning on showing you anything. So I didn't sort of do all this stuff real nicely.

I knew you'd do that. It keeps defaulting back to not mirroring the way it's supposed to mirror. And I don't know how to stop it from doing that. But give me just a second here. This is live. You know how this is.

So that should be mirroring. And I don't know why it keeps going back to mirror from built-in display. It's gotta make sure to do that before the program starts next time. Anyway, I'm not sure why it defaults back.

But check this out. So here is a program with Leighton Flowers, AK Richardson, and Warren McGrew. Can God survive trillions of freewill decisions? Romans 9 debate review. Obviously, I was far too nice to Mr. Richardson.

And I really did try to. He was very sensitive about his Church of Christ affiliation being made a big part of anything. And if I had wanted to derail that debate and get off into stuff, I could have, but I didn't.

I wanted to stay focused on Romans 9, and especially in its context. So the reality is he's the one going off. He's the one who went off into weird stuff. And it just seems that none of these folks understand if you read Open Theists, if you read, there I am.

I still need to fix that, Rich. I'm so teeny tiny down there. And you need to send me written instructions on, because it's not gonna stick, obviously. It doesn't stick. I don't know why. But anyway, if you read people who really defend creaturely libertarian freedom, and by the way, that came up.

He asked me, did Adam have libertarian freedom? I said, yes. And then immediately said, I mean that within the creaturely realm, it's under the decree of God. I'm just saying he didn't have a fallen nature.

And man, everyone's gone nuts, and they're ignoring everything else I said about it. It's almost as bad as the Ignatius thing in the Heshmire debate, rather than dealing with what the debate was actually about.

But can God survive trillions of free will decisions? And so if you read Open Theists, you know that any violation of human free will is repugnant to them. And they just, the idea that it would happen over and over and over again.

Now, Richardson did not give us any kind of coherent explanation. All he kept saying is, well, God has a way to get it done. Well, that's nice. That's cool. But what do you mean he has a way to get it?

How can you call it libertarian free will if it is subject to the decree of God in the sense that they are rebel sinners, cannot do what's pleasing to God, and God is going to accomplish his purpose at the time he wishes to accomplish his purpose.

So you can't have options A, B, C, and D. And you've heard, those of you who've listened, I've debated people who said, yeah, Paul could have said no. And then God would have gone with somebody else. And then if they had said no, he would have gone to somebody else and over and over again.

That's the consistent view. But all I was trying to say in the debate, by the way, I did an entire hour long program before I did this on someone else's webcast. All I was trying to say was, if you affirm that, for example, the timing of the crucifixion, that Herod, Pontius Pilate, Soser, were to be involved with it, that Judas was to be the son of perdition, the number of quote-unquote freewill decisions that would have to be completely controlled by God is immense.

Now, maybe they're trying to be Molinists, but I don't think they are. And Molinism then depends on the ungrounded, unfounded concept of middle knowledge. So they're just being inconsistent. They're just admitting, yes, God will accomplish his decree, but he will mysteriously do it somehow without violating anyone's libertarian freewill, which is not under his decree or something.

I don't know.

But hey, if you're hanging out with McGrew and Leighton, I should have obviously been significantly more direct. But we'll get to that in a second. Do-do-do-do-do. And there we go. And so let's talk about the debates.

Debate Review: Romans 9, Libertarian Free Will, and the Golden Chain

That's why we did the Louisiana Loop. And let's talk about the debates. Let's talk about the debate. Is the King James Version the best English translation? I really like Doug Levesque. He's a very nice guy, a nice wife.

The people that were associated with him are nice people. It was not an aggressive or nasty debate in any way, shape or form, which let's be honest, most King James debates end up there. And when we were approached to do this by a representative of the King James Bible Research Council, one of the things that was emphasized to us was we're not Rachmaninites, we're not Ripplingerites.

We don't believe in double inspiration. So the Bible was inspired originally, and then it was re-inspired between 1604 and 1611. So we're not into any of that stuff. And I'm like, okay, that sounds great, that's good.

But then I went and got presentations. I went to the website and I listened to a couple of presentations that Doug Levesque had given. And a few years ago, they did a big conference and he did one on themes, or I forget exactly what it was.

But he described, he said, I see these two manuscripts, and he's talking about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As soon as anyone does that, I know that they are way, way behind in textual critical study because Westcott and Hart may have overemphasized Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but we've had the papyri discovered since then that verify many of the unique readings in those two, you know, like John 118, Monogenes Theos.

And there's just been so much since then, CBGM now, and this kind of stuff that, you know. But he said, I see these two manuscripts and just a few others along with it, and they're burning in the flames of hell.

And Lucifer is standing up out of them,.

Burning in the flames of hell.

And then over here, we have the Byzantine texts and there's the beautiful angel in it. And I'm just going, oh, okay, well. And even in his opening statement, he talked about heretics, corrupted texts, you know.

And I'm sitting here going, okay, well, look, Ruckman wouldn't be this nice, that's obvious. But what's the real difference here? When it comes down to the nitty gritty, what's the real difference? And I had been told that a representative of their organization had debated Dr. Ward last year.

And in the debate, it said, yes, the King James should be edited, which is what Bergen said. And any honest person promoting the majority text, the Byzantine text, even an honest person presenting the TR, will say, yeah, the King James at, you know, Acts 530 could be edited.

It can be made clear, it can be rendered more clearly. This guy said that it could be edited and he got fired. No longer associated with the organization. That's what I was told. And I'm like, hmm, okay.

I wonder how this is really gonna go. And his opening statement didn't even touch the text. And by the way, in the preceding things he had done, he said, we've already won the textual battle, it's been over forever.

And, you know, just dismissively, just like, oh, that's, you know. And so, you know, I get up and I present numerous examples of textual and translational issues where modern translations like the LSB are superior to the King James.

And that the King James translators themselves would have agreed. The response isn't a response. And I even said in my second rebuttal, I said, have you noticed, only one side of us, only one side has quoted a single Bible verse so far.

And so when he gets up, well, here's lots of Bible verses. And he just starts quoting Bible verses. He doesn't say why it's relevant. He doesn't say how this is, has anything to do with what I've said or what he's said.

He did a bunch of stuff about gegrepti. It stands written. That had nothing to do, it may have spoken to inspiration, had nothing to do with the 17th century English translation of the Bible. It was really troubling.

And then we get into cross-examination. And as is often the case in debates, that's where the wheels fell off. Because I would, I pressed, I pressed a text that is not in the King James only controversy.

There are a lot of problems with the text of Revelation in the Textus Receptus. And so you can only include so many. But I should have included this. But Revelation 21, 24, we have the manuscript. We have that single manuscript.

And I remember, for years, I was in error. I said it was a Latin manuscript and they had to extract the Greek from it. No, it's a Greek manuscript and they had to extract the Greek from it.

It's 2817, I think.

2814, I think, is the Paul one. And it is a commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. And what they had to do is they had to extract the biblical text from the commentary. Because if you look at the page, it's just all sort of mishmashed together.

And this resulted in a number of errors, transcriptional errors, and things like that. But in Revelation 21, 24, what happened there is part of Andreas of Caesarea's commentary was mistakenly copied as if it was a part of the Greek text of Revelation.

Which means that no Christian until 1516, when Erasmus' first edition of the Greek New Testament came out, had ever seen the reading of Revelation 21, 24, because it contains the words of Andreas of Caesarea, which were written about 600 years after the birth of Christ.

And I thought, someone's alarm's going off out there. You hear all sorts of things in RV Perks. But I thought if anything would cause someone to go, you know, one thing that we will agree on is that we want only what was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

And so, Andreas of Caesarea was, and I didn't bring this up, I should have, was really into allegorical interpretation, which Doug's not gonna like. He was anti-Chileastic, which means, or some people say Chileastic, against the concept of a millennium, which I also doubt he would like.

So I don't think he'd really be a big fan of Andreas of Caesarea's theology and biblical interpretation. But no matter what, you just have to go, yep, that wasn't there for 1 ,500 years. Well, okay, let's say 1 ,400 years, if you wanna make Revelation written late.

That wasn't there, no Christian had ever seen it. And it comes from an uninspired human author, 600 years after the birth of Christ. We don't want that in our Bible. We've got to be able to agree on something like that.

Just got to. Nope, he wouldn't, nope, he wouldn't go there. And I don't know if it was when I pressed him on that one or the Ephesians 3 .9 one, which is a translational issue, whom they slew and hung on a tree as if they killed Jesus and then hung him on a tree.

But at some point during the cross-examination, Doug just sort of stalled and there was dead air. And everybody in the room could feel it. And he sort of put his head down a little bit and then he looked up and he sort of had a little grin on his face and he said, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion or how you'd think that way or something like that.

He didn't have answers for the facts. I showed him Acts 5 .30. Now this is fascinating. Before that debate, someone had linked me to an article that Jeff Riddle. Now Jeff Riddle's a TR only guy, teaches for IRBS.

And Jeff Riddle had posted a defense of the King James rendering of Acts 5 .30, which only proves Mark Ward is right. TR onlyists are King James onlyists. Scratch him and they'll bleed the King James.

It's just an extra layer. They're not really TR onlyists, they're King James onlyists. I was stunned. And actually, I think, yeah, all right, here we go. This is playing off of YouTube, so hopefully it won't crash us or anything here.

But let's listen to just a little bit of the cross-examination here from the debate.

Okay, so

That wasn't a question either.

For the next 15 minutes, Dr. White will be asking questions of Dr. Levesque, so let me restate some things. The debaters do need an opportunity to frame their questions, but we need to do it concisely.

But it's not wrong for a debater to frame their question. But if we have very long questions, I am gonna interrupt. If we can't set a question in less than a minute, that's probably too long. So Dr. White, you will have 15 minutes to question Dr. Levesque.

Again, Dr. White, you own the time, and audience, it's not inappropriate to interrupt if the questioner feels that he needs to re-ask his question or to get an answer. So these gentlemen are doing very well.

This is how debates happen. So Dr. White, 15 minutes.

In Revelation 21 -24, the phrase ton sozo menon is found in the Textus Receptus, and is translated of them which are saved in the King James Version of the Bible. We possess the manuscript from which this was derived, number 2814, which was Andreas' accessory as commentary on Revelation.

We now know that that phrase was Andreas' commentary. It is not found in any Greek manuscript that's ever been found, and yet it's in the King James Version of the Bible. Does the King James need to be edited at that point to remove Andreas' accessory as commentary.

From the scripture?

I would never change the King James Bible. I don't necessarily use the word perfect. I use the word 99 pure, most exact, without provable error. I don't think that we might not in the future discover some new Greek manuscripts that we can then analyze or audit at that time.

I don't think, I think that the devil and man's failure is going to continue. As I'm trying to show today, there's two streams of thought, one that is cavalier in the picking at the minutia. I think this is a picking of minutia.

I'm sure there were 56 translators that knew Greek better than me, for sure, and that would have considered that, that argued with each other. There was different schools of thought amongst themselves, and they would have not let each other have any side.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the King James translators were aware that the printed text from which they were translating were based upon a single manuscript from Andreas of Caesarea, and that his words had been inadvertently and mistakenly inserted into the text?

Do you have any evidence that they ever discussed it?

I don't have any evidence that they discussed it. There's a lot of things that they would have discussed that would not have shown up anywhere.

Okay, so we come back to, and I really think this is a fundamental issue, because it is, we have the manuscript. It's available online. Anybody can go look at it if they want to. There is no manuscript prior to Erasmus, prior to 1516, that contains the reading that's in the King James Version of the Bible.

How can you look at that data and go, but it's still perfect?

I didn't say it was perfect. I said there was no provable error. You're saying that we can't see what they said about it or what they known about it, but that doesn't mean that there's provable error.

I can't produce their conversation, but neither can you.

But, okay, they weren't using manuscripts. They were using printed texts that did not give them the background information. The background information is known to us today. This phrase is not in any Byzantine, can you show me this phrase in any Byzantine manuscript produced in the history of the Christian church?

I cannot.

Okay, can you show me?

I can't do that, obviously, today. I don't have Greek expertise or a bunch of Greek texts here, but I do know that 56 guys that were from different schools of thought set up over seven years and in massive redefining of each other's mistakes or translations would not have let each other fail in one respect or get past something by in one respect, and so they were already 100 years removed from Erasmus so they couldn't necessarily talk to him, but they also had Stephanus, they also had Beza, they also had others that they talked to about.

So it's kind of a moot point to ask me if I can produce that.

Because, well, you are making an assertion that they would have known about this. There is no evidence that they knew about this. Can you show us that the majority text or the Byzantine text, which you have referenced more than once, contain the reading that is in the King James Bible?

And if the majority and Byzantine texts are unanimous in correcting the reading in the King James, will you actually subject the Byzantine and majority traditions to the translation in English of the King James version of the Bible?

I think updates and edits done, tried. The King James Bible Research Council takes all comers, and every time we've said no. I'll give you this. I think we can do another 21st century audit. I think that would be fair, but I think if we're going to do another 21st century audit of, say, the Byzantine text or the King James Bible or the way that they come together and analyze in percentages, we need to do the same thing with something on your side of the table where it comes to modern English texts and...

Okay, you can watch the whole thing. I'll try to remember to link to it when I write up the blog article for this program. But the King James is perfect because it doesn't matter how clear the evidence is.

I don't know what he thinks an audit would be. He may get in trouble for that, I think. That sounds like an editing, but the King James is perfect in text, and the King James is perfect in translation.

And in fact, if I recall correctly, at one point, I asked him if the... I did ask him if the LSB's rendering of Acts 530, whom they murdered by hanging on a tree, something along those lines, is that demonic?

And because it's different than the King James, he said, yes, it's demonic. So how do you avoid second inspirationism?

You can't.

If you're saying the text is perfect despite the clear errors, and the translation's perfect despite the clear errors, then that means it was inspired between 1604 and 1611. And he can sit there and say, well, there are all these great scholars.

And I asked him, has knowledge of the Greek language, did it end in 1611? Did the translators claim that it ended in 1611? You'd have to believe that to hold this position. I think it was really clear, and because it was more irenic, I mean, at least during the cross-ex, at least when I was asking questions, I wasn't being mean, I wasn't being aggressive, but I was very pointed and dogged.

And everybody sees that. I do cross-examination, that's what I do. So that's why I think it's gonna be really, really useful for a long time for anybody who's hearing this stuff to go, oh, wow, they don't really have answers to these issues.

And he tried to make the argument, well, I've had people use your book against the Bible. And I'm like, okay, yeah, people misuse all sorts of things because my book's not against the Bible, it's against King James-only-ism.

But what does it say at the beginning of my book? Just a few pages in, if I recall correctly, this is in the original edition, it's on the left-hand page. It's sort of typeset in larger font. The King James Bible alone equals the word of God alone.

That's King James-only-ism. And you can reject Ruckman, you can reject Ripplinger, you can say we're different than D .A. Wade or whoever. It doesn't matter. If that's your starting point, you're not only a King James-only-ist, but you're gonna spin in circles for your entire life because you have assumed the conclusion of your argument and you're going to assume it from the start.

And that means there is no rational defense of your position, there just isn't. You can't go there, you can't accomplish it. So I think that'll be very, very useful to folks. Um, you know, no, he's not nearly, Rich said he sounded a bit like Sam Gipp to me.

And by the way, I can tell you now, I'm not gonna ruin the surprise, but I've seen some pictures. While the cat's away, the mice's have been playing. And I am thinking that Rich is getting ready. I'm thinking we may have a second program.

You know, Apologia has all sorts of programs. You got Apologia Radio and Sheologians and Cultish and how many coming out of Apologia Studios, all sorts of stuff like that. So maybe pretty soon there's gonna be two coming from the dividing line, including the Rich Pierce show.

Because the background from where he sits has been completely filled in and the wall's no longer just a white, plain old wall. And I have a feeling that there are some lights probably that have all of a sudden appeared that, and we got lots of extra lights, lots and lots of extra lights.